| 7 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I know my glaive wielding Magus can't ever use Spell Combat while fighting with that weapon, but what about Spellstrike?
I would appreciate a staff member to answer, if possible. The threads I have seen seem to have extremely differing opinions.
Thank you in advance.
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Take a look at the FAQ Button over there ------------>
Push that, and it flags the post for attention with the FAQ response team. If enough other people mark it FAQ, then the 33rd amendment to the Constitution requires Paizo to respond with an answer within 24 hours, subject to Presidential Veto.
Spellstrike works with any weapon. Only Spell Combat has a weapon restriction.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To clarify, it involves lots of free actions.
First, it's a free action to let go of your weapon with one hand (and thus be holding, but not wielding, it with your other).
It's also a free action to regrip your weapon in the same manner.
Third, casting a touch attack spell. Actually casting the spell is a standard action (usually, corner cases may apply), and then you get one free action attack to deliver the charge of the touch spell that turn.
Fourth, grabbing your weapon does not discharge your spell. See faq Here.
So it goes like this:
Step 1) Free action let go of your weapon with one hand
Step 2) use your now-free hand to cast your spell
Step 3) Regrip your weapon as a free action
Step 4) take your other action this turn, including the free-action attack which may be a spellstrike.
While this is doable, it is also wrong. Spell combat requires you, as a full round action, to have a free hand. If, at any time during that round both hands have something equipped, you can not use spell combat. There are exceptions to this, most of them are with magus arcana or magus archetypes.
Spell Strike is the ability to use a weapon stats to attack instead of using a touch attack to land a spell. Spell Strike has nothing to do with casting a spell.
Yes, but Darigaaz's list of actions is not wrong. He'd described a perfectly legal sequence, because he never write a thing about spell combat: you can cast a spell with a 2h changing the hold to do it. Then, once you cast it, you can switch again to 2h holding. If you have spellstrike, and the spell is a touch spell, you can land your spell via spellstrike. Spell combat never come out.
Yes you can.
|
The whole "i use a free action to switch my grip/weapon" thing might be doable per RAW, at least in some corner cases, but I think it's not what the devs intended. Yeah, some people might argue that it's possible to interpret the rules to allow you to two-weapon fighting with a greatsword and gauntlet, for example. However, I wouldn't allow it at my table.
I guess the problem lies in that for now it is a free action to change your grip, and also in defining what constitutes as "wielding a weapon" during a round. In 4E most such actions are "minor actions", and you only get one/round; ergo, I'd suggest that any minor/undefined actions would be errataed to swift actions to prevent this kind of abuse.
Spellstrike i think yes. At the very least you can use multi-touch spells like frostbite with the weapon from round 2. But it is clear that different folks think different and i suggest you talk it over with your gm. My magus also have a glaive but mostly he figths with his reskinned katana.
The main problem here is that no where in Spell Strike description is the casting of a spell.
Spell Strike description gives you a different option on how to attack with a spell.
When you cast a touch spell, you get a free touch attack to deliver it. When you have Spellstrike, you can use that free touch attack to make a regular weapon attack to deliver it.
So, if I am a Magus holding a Greatsword and I cast Shocking Grasp, I get a free touch to deliver it, and with Spellstrike, I elect to make a Greatsword attack instead and deliver it through the Greatsword.
Darigaaz's sequence of events was correct.
Spellstrike can be performed with any weapon.
Spell Combat can't be used while wielding a two-handed weapon unless you have four arms - and I believe that one of the designers (possibly JJ) stated that the intention in that case was to deliver the spell with the one-handed weapon you've 'designated' for Spell Combat.
Short answer: Yes.
Long answer: Grick's guide to magus, spellstrike, and spell combat
Extraneous data: The vast majority of confusion regarding the magus stems from players conflating spellstrike and spell combat. Sometimes a question is asked about one, while meaning the other, sometimes readers read about one and think the other is being talked about. e.g, in this very thread Matt2VK confused Darigaaz the Igniter's description of a valid way to use spellstrike as not valid because you would not be able to use spell combat in the manner described above. Almost every post I've read on the magus spell combat and/or spellstrike has at least one poster similarly confusing the two abilities. Make sure you understand that each is a distinct and separate ability. They are generally used in conjunction with one another, but they are not required to be used in conjunction with one another.
@Xaratherus, unless I've missed a FAQ or ruling somewhere, even with 4 arms you cannot use spell combat with a 2-hander.
To use this ability, the magus must have one hand free (even if the spell being cast does not have somatic components), while wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand
|
|
You can use a Glaive or any two-handed weapon with Spellstrike. The ability is designed to make it easier to deliver Touch spells, not more difficult, as a reward for playing this particular class. First, the intent from Sean Reynolds in a FAQ dated 2/7/2012 (abbreviated for relevance, on the magus page):
...Basically, the spellstrike gives the magus more options when it comes to delivering touch spells; it’s not supposed to make it more difficult for the magus to use touch spells.
Second, as noted above, Free Actions provide the "non-actions" that demonstrate how Spellstrike works with a two-handed weapon. From James Jacobs, unoffical post 6/9/2010 regarding spellcasting with a 2-handed bonded weapon:
As for the OP's question... if you're wielding a 2H weapon, you can let go of the weapon with one of your hands (free action). You're now only carrying the 2H weapon, not wielding it, but your free hand is now free to attack or help cast spells or whatever. And at the end of your turn if your free hand remains free you'd be able to return it to grip your 2H weapon so you can still threaten foes and take attacks of opportunity if you want.
Because free actions are as many as can fit reasonably within a round, the "regrip" notion is perfectly valid. Again, the magus is designed around delivering touch spells through weaponry. Rulings that make this more difficult are against the design of the class.
@Xaratherus, unless I've missed a FAQ or ruling somewhere, even with 4 arms you cannot use spell combat with a 2-hander.
To use this ability, the magus must have one hand free (even if the spell being cast does not have somatic components), while wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand
You have hands A and C on your left side, and hands B and D on your right. You wield a two-handed weapon in hands A and B; hand D is wielding a light or one-handed weapon; hand C is empty.
Hands C and D qualify you to use Spell Combat, even though you have a two-handed weapon wielded.
[edit]
Because free actions are as many as can fit reasonably within a round, the "regrip" notion is perfectly valid. Again, the magus is designed around delivering touch spells through weaponry. Rulings that make this more difficult are against the design of the class.
It's important to note though that Spell Combat and Spellstrike are two separate things. While it's true that the designers have stated that Spellstrike should really only add options to delivering touch spells, the same has not been said for Spell Combat; the limitation of having one hand free (for the duration) and having a one-handed or light weapon clearly bar using Spell Combat with a two-handed weapon.
To use this ability, the magus must have one hand free (even if the spell being cast does not have somatic components), while wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand
Which several of the exotic weapons qualify as one handed when you have the EWP. Or is there some contention that EWP (katana/bastard sword) doesn't qualify them as one-handed weapons?
@Xaratherus, unless I've missed a FAQ or ruling somewhere, even with 4 arms you cannot use spell combat with a 2-hander.
To use this ability, the magus must have one hand free (even if the spell being cast does not have somatic components), while wielding a light or one-handed melee weapon in the other hand
You have hands A and C on your left side, and hands B and D on your right. You wield a two-handed weapon in hands A and B; hand D is wielding a light or one-handed weapon; hand C is empty.
Hands C and D qualify you to use Spell Combat, even though you have a two-handed weapon wielded.
This isn't using a 2-hander with spell combat though.
Sure, you can hold that two hander, but you can't attack with it in the same round you are using spell combat. So I'm not sure where you are going with this train of thought...
Magus, Spell Combat: When using spell combat, do I specifically have to use the weapon in my other hand, or can I use a mixture of weapons (such as armor spikes and bites) so long as my casting hand remains free?You specifically have to use the light or one-handed melee weapon in your other hand.
Which several of the exotic weapons qualify as one handed when you have the EWP. Or is there some contention that EWP (katana/bastard sword) doesn't qualify them as one-handed weapons?
These would qualify as one handed weapons for spell combat (some might disagree with this as they are technically 2 handed weapons which can be used in one had with the right feat), but you cannot choose to wield it in two hands during the same round you are using spell combat. Now of course if your attacks fail to hit you could on the following round two hand such a weapon using spellstrike.
These would qualify as one handed weapons for spell combat (some might disagree with this as they are technically 2 handed weapons which can be used in one had with the right feat), but you cannot choose to wield it in two hands during the same round you are using spell combat. Now of course if your attacks fail to hit you could on the following round two hand such a weapon using spellstrike.
Which several of the exotic weapons qualify as one handed when you have the EWP. Or is there some contention that EWP (katana/bastard sword) doesn't qualify them as one-handed weapons?
I disagree, they are technically one handed weapons, with a caveat that they can be used two handed without the proper proficiency.
Notice the Bastard sword and Dwarven Waraxe are listed in the book as One handed Exotic weapons. It is in the weapon description that you find the special rule for Martial two-handing.
These would qualify as one handed weapons for spell combat (some might disagree with this as they are technically 2 handed weapons which can be used in one had with the right feat), but you cannot choose to wield it in two hands during the same round you are using spell combat. Now of course if your attacks fail to hit you could on the following round two hand such a weapon using spellstrike.
Which several of the exotic weapons qualify as one handed when you have the EWP. Or is there some contention that EWP (katana/bastard sword) doesn't qualify them as one-handed weapons?
I disagree, they are technically one handed weapons, with a caveat that they can be used two handed without the proper proficiency.
Notice the Bastard sword and Dwarven Waraxe are listed in the book as One handed Exotic weapons. It is in the weapon description that you find the special rule for Martial two-handing.
You are right. I was remembering it backwards.
|
|
The whole "i use a free action to switch my grip/weapon" thing might be doable per RAW, at least in some corner cases, but I think it's not what the devs intended. Yeah, some people might argue that it's possible to interpret the rules to allow you to two-weapon fighting with a greatsword and gauntlet, for example. However, I wouldn't allow it at my table.Missing some very cinematic opportunities if I do say so myself. A near miss with your claymore described as an equally awesome parry by your opponent, the binded blades only separated by an expertly placed uppercut with a mailed fist.
Not to mention with a level of monk they could just dual wield their foot to their foes groin (Now that is a way to describe stunning fist feat, save that one for later today).
Or you could just use your fist right away; just describe that entanglement of blades as flavor, then use free/swift action to change your grip and punch the other guy. No need to involve two-weapon wielding and/or get into an argument with your GM. Works from the cinematic viewpoint, but is (naturally) a poor option in combat (unless you have Stunning Fist or some other trick up your sleeve).
As for your second paragraph, I don't understand what you're saying there; please clarify.
The main problem here is that no where in Spell Strike description is the casting of a spell.
Spell Strike description gives you a different option on how to attack with a spell.
When you cast a touch spell, you get a free touch attack to deliver it. When you have Spellstrike, you can use that free touch attack to make a regular weapon attack to deliver it.
So, if I am a Magus holding a Greatsword and I cast Shocking Grasp, I get a free touch to deliver it, and with Spellstrike, I elect to make a Greatsword attack instead and deliver it through the Greatsword.
Darigaaz's sequence of events was correct.
You can't cast Shocking Grasp with a greatsword in your hands and attack with that greatsword in the same turn. You get a free TOUCH ATTACK with spell combat. Spellstrike seems to have been written with a 1H weapon in mind.
At least, that's my interpretation of the class; if I was GM and there's no FAQ or other clarification, I wouldn't allow it. We need a designer to rule for certain. ;)
Monks (and presumably anyone with Imp. Unarmed) can use their feet elbows knees etc as weapons. If you can use a two hander with armor spikes as a twf combo you most certainly can do it with your own appendages.
They made an FAQ where you are specifically not allowed to TWF with a two-handed weapon and armor spikes. It was a pretty big deal.